This message was deleted.

The challenges regarding platform engineering is that the standardization is different in every organization, and have a different focus. For standardized envionment like AWS, GCP, or Azure, you should be able to use standardized tools.

Companies like Aiven, render etc provide a good simple UX on top of primitive resources ie: AWS etc, for startups who might not have ops people that provides a advantage, problem is when you get into that middle size, stable growth stage then those platforms are not able to keep up with the edge cases required ( that's usually where platform teams start coming into play )

As Hugo mentioned, things vary based on company stage • At the startup stage, companies need to show growth. The case for using a platform is to remove the cognitive load on developers so that they can accelerate product development. Many of these platforms work out to be 1/10 of the price of a consulting agency, part-time infra engineer or the opportunity cost of a full-time engineer • At the growth stage, companies are looking to reach scale. The case for using a platform is to provide force multipliers for developers by instituting standard, yet efficient delivery practices. Depending on the technical complexity of the product, a software team may hire a small team of DevOps/Platform engineers to accomplish. Again, these platforms would cost a fraction of a small team. • At the enterprise stage, many companies usually have several teams that collaborate on ways to accelerate development while managing security, compliance, and regulatory concerns. (This is a gross generalization of how enterprises work to illustrate a point). For these companies, it's a question of build vs buy. Internal platforms take significant time to build at a place that doesn't usually have fast innovation. Consider that buying a platform is about reaching a strategic goal that could not be achieved internally.

All awesome responses, thank you to everyone who left a comment and helped clarify this for me!